Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy

被引:6
|
作者
Dogan, Nesrin [1 ]
Mihaylov, Ivaylo [2 ]
Wu, Yan [1 ]
Keall, Paul J. [3 ]
Siebers, Jeffrey V. [1 ]
Hagan, Michael P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
[2] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Dept Radiat Oncol, Little Rock, AR 72205 USA
[3] Stanford Univ, Ctr Canc, Dept Radiat Oncol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
来源
RADIATION ONCOLOGY | 2009年 / 4卷
关键词
TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM; QUANTITATIVE-EVALUATION; MULTILEAF COLLIMATORS; OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM; ELECTRON-TRANSPORT; RADIOTHERAPY PLANS; IMRT; HEAD; NECK; BEAM;
D O I
10.1186/1748-717X-4-18
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between Superposition/Convolution (SC) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to experimental (film) measurements and the implications for clinical treatments. Methods: Twenty-two prostate patients treated with an in-house SIB-IMRT protocol were selected. SC-based plans used for treatment were re-evaluated with EGS4-based MC calculations for treatment verification. Accuracy was evaluated with-respect-to film-based dosimetry. Comparisons used gamma (gamma)-index, distance-to-agreement (DTA), and superimposed dose distributions. The treatment plans were also compared based on dose-volume indices and 3-D gamma index for targets and critical structures. Results: Flat-phantom comparisons demonstrated that the MC algorithm predicted measurements better than the SC algorithm. The average PTVprostate D-98 agreement between SC and MC was 1.2% +/- 1.1. For rectum, the average differences in SC and MC calculated D-50 ranged from -3.6% to 3.4%. For small bowel, there were up to 30.2% +/- 40.7 (range: 0.2%, 115%) differences between SC and MC calculated average D-50 index. For femurs, the differences in average D-50 reached up to 8.6% +/- 3.6 (range: 1.2%, 14.5%). For PTVprostate and PTVnodes, the average gamma scores were >95.0%. Conclusion: MC agrees better with film measurements than SC. Although, on average, SC-calculated doses agreed with MC calculations within the targets within 2%, there were deviations up to 5% for some patient's treatment plans. For some patients, the magnitude of such deviations might decrease the intended target dose levels that are required for the treatment protocol, placing the patients in different dose levels that do not satisfy the protocol dose requirements.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Comparison of Monte Carlo and analytical dose computations for intensity modulated proton therapy
    Yepes, Pablo
    Adair, Antony
    Grosshans, David
    Mirkovic, Dragan
    Poenisch, Falk
    Titt, Uwe
    Wang, Qianxia
    Mohan, Radhe
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2018, 63 (04):
  • [42] Relative profile and dose verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Chang, JW
    Mageras, GS
    Chui, CS
    Ling, CC
    Lutz, W
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2000, 47 (01): : 231 - 240
  • [43] A Monte Carlo approach to lung dose calculation in small fields used in intensity modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy
    Mesbahi, Asghar
    Dadgar, Habib
    Ghareh-Aghaji, Nahideh
    Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2014, 10 (04) : 896 - 902
  • [44] Simultaneous Integrated Boost Plan Comparison between Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ( VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for Prostate, Seminal vesicle and Lymph Node Irradiation
    Adeneye, Samuel O.
    Ariyo, Inioluwa D.
    Joseph, Adedayo O.
    Sowunmi, Anthonia C.
    Akpochafor, Michael O.
    Uwagba, Godwin
    El Hamamsi, Ibrahim
    Kotkat, Abdallah E.
    EURASIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND ONCOLOGY, 2022, 6 (03): : 219 - 225
  • [45] Energy and intensity modulated electron radiation therapy by means of a Monte Carlo routine
    Plaza, AL
    Ma, C
    du Plessis, F
    Lagares, J
    Li, J
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2005, 76 : S94 - S94
  • [46] Development and commissioning of a multileaf collimator model in Monte Carlo dose calculations for intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Jang, SY
    Vassiliev, ON
    Liu, HH
    Mohan, R
    Siebers, JV
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (03) : 770 - 781
  • [47] Monte Carlo evaluation of Acuros XB dose calculation Algorithm for intensity modulated radiation therapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma
    Yeh, Peter C. Y.
    Lee, C. C.
    Chao, T. C.
    Tung, C. J.
    RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, 2017, 140 : 419 - 422
  • [48] Outcome and Toxicity for Patients Treated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
    Vora, Sujay A.
    Wong, William W.
    Schild, Steven E.
    Ezzell, Gary A.
    Andrews, Paul E.
    Ferrigni, Robert G.
    Swanson, Scott K.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 190 (02): : 521 - 526
  • [49] Erectile dysfunction in prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Yildirim, Halil Cumhur
    Ergen, Sefika Arzu
    Sedef, Emine
    Sahin, Merve
    Karacam, Songul Cavdar
    Senocak, Mustafa Sukru
    Dincbas, Fazilet Oner
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2020, 57 (01) : 70 - 75
  • [50] Acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated by dose escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy and organ tracking
    Ghadjar, Pirus
    Vock, Jacqueline
    Vetterli, Daniel
    Manser, Peter
    Bigler, Roland
    Tille, Jan
    Madlung, Axel
    Behrensmeier, Frank
    Mini, Roberto
    Aebersold, Daniel M.
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2008, 3 (1)